[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Jun 21 13:34:36 PDT 2012

On 21 Jun 2012, at 21:05 , Paul Hoffman wrote:

> Greetings again. Andrew's and Yoav's last comments indicate a dislike for the idea that the canonical RFC format might be "code" like HTML or XML because those formats are not meant for reading. My proposal for "one canonical, many display" formats assumes that anyone who wants to read an RFC will read it in a format they like, and that format is not likely to be the canonical format. (To be clear, someone doesn't normally *read* an HTML file, they display it in an HTML rendering program like a browser.)

> Yoav suggests that there be a preferred display format. I don't see a value in publicly preferring any of the formats, and I explicitly reject the idea that we need to become junior lawyers and try to guess what some court in some country would or would not understand.

Agree with the above.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list